
British economist John Maynard Keynes and Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek are two of the most renowned figures in the history of 20th-century economic thought. Their ideas not only had a profound impact on the past economic and social landscape, but they will continue to influence current and future economic and social development until a more convincing economic ideology takes hold. The debate between Keynes and Hayek is known as “the most classic and famous duel in economic history.” American journalist Nicholas Wapshott, who was a senior editor at *The Times* of London and *The New York Sun*, systematically examined this debate in his book *Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics*. As we revisit this classic academic feast, we also reflect on the serious economic question: “To what extent should the government intervene in the market?”

Today, people are already quite familiar with the starkly opposing economic views of Keynes and Hayek. Keynes believed that the root cause of an economic crisis is the lack of confidence among capitalists in investment prospects, leading to reduced investment, and thus advocated for effective government intervention and control over social economic activities. Hayek, on the other hand, believed that the root cause of economic crises was over-investment by capitalists and argued that government intervention would only damage the mechanisms of market development and functioning. Therefore, he firmly defended the idea of a free market order. Keynes argued that the government could expand public spending through fiscal deficits and national debt, increase state investment and consumption, and indirectly advocated for the "nationalization of currency." Hayek, by contrast, proposed that currency issuance should be handed over to private banks, which would provide sound and stable money based on their own interests, advocating for the "denationalization of currency."

Keynes supported inflationary policies to increase corporate profits, stimulate investment, expand employment, and achieve stable economic development. Hayek argued that inflation would widen the income gap, cause asset prices to soar, and eventually lead to greater unemployment and economic vicious cycles. He believed that business cycles would naturally return to full employment. Keynes argued for increased investment in public works, improving social welfare, and providing relief spending for those living below the poverty line. Hayek, however, believed that public goods do not directly satisfy any specific demand but provide certain conditions under which individuals and smaller groups can enjoy better opportunities to meet their respective needs.

The debate between Keynes and Hayek is characterized by a vast ideological chasm, and throughout their lives, they could never reconcile with each other’s viewpoints. Their debates were later carried on by their passionate disciples, such as John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman. In terms of personality, the two were also very different. Keynes was highly articulate and charismatic, often painting an optimistic vision of the world, which was embraced by an entire generation of politicians and economists on both sides of the Atlantic. In contrast, Hayek was meticulous and persistent, swimming against the tide, but found support among market advocates and libertarians. To this day, the two distinct schools of thought in economics continue their “battle.”

This economic battle has left government decision-makers oscillating between the two scholars' ideas, influencing the ups and downs of the world economy, affecting the lives and livelihoods of billions. The global economic crisis of 1929–1933 led to the widespread adoption of Keynesianism, represented by the "New Deal" of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and it seemed that Keynes had triumphed over Hayek. However, the oil crisis of the 1970s plunged the global economy into the dilemma of "stagflation," and the neoliberalism represented by the "Washington Consensus" became the dominant policy-making ideology, giving Hayek a comeback. By the end of the 20th century, the failure of neoliberal economic policies in Latin America, Russia, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe, coupled with the impact of the 2008 global financial crisis, suggested that Keynesianism might once again be on the rise.

In terms of policy practice, the struggle between Keynesianism and neoliberalism may continue, and it is still too early to conclude who will ultimately prevail. Interestingly, the Nobel Prize in Economics, which is seen as a "weather vane" for academic trends, has also been swayed by economic crises and shifts in government decision-making. Since the Nobel Prize in Economics was first awarded in 1968, Keynes, who had passed away by then, was naturally ineligible. Hayek, however, won the prize in 1974. During the 1970s and 1980s, when neoliberalism was on the rise, figures like Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Finn Kydland, and Edward Prescott also won the prize. Later, however, new Keynesians like Joseph Stiglitz and Peter Diamond, who carried on Keynes' legacy, were awarded the prize as well. In 2012, with the resurgence of neoliberalism, Alvin Roth and Lloyd Shapley took home the Nobel Prize in Economics.

In fact, despite their dramatic disagreements, Keynes and Hayek had similar aims. They both studied the same subject: the cycles of boom and bust in commercial activity that emerged from the ruins of World War I. Both sought to establish a theoretical framework that combined real and monetary phenomena to explain the dynamics of the economy, especially the business cycle. Their economic theories both originated from Knut Wicksell's theory of monetary equilibrium and the concept of "natural interest rates." Furthermore, they shared a deep commitment to the basic principles of a market economy governed by freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. If we look purely at logical reasoning, both of their theoretical conclusions and policy recommendations could explain the causes of economic recessions and offer solutions. The historical choices made by policymakers ultimately explain the root cause of their disagreements—it was a matter of experience and practical judgment.

It’s worth mentioning that although their debate was often heated, with sharp criticisms exchanged, the mutual respect they maintained beyond academia, and their personal friendship, is even more commendable. Although Hayek had differing views on credit from Keynes, he praised Keynes' *A Treatise on Money* as "an outstanding description and classification of different forms of money." Similarly, Keynes was deeply moved by Hayek's great work *The Road to Serfdom*. Keynes not only provided housing for Hayek when he first arrived in London, but in their debate letters, they openly discussed their friendship. Hayek once said, “Although I still disagreed with Keynes' views and had fierce debates with him, we maintained the best of personal friendships. And as a man, I held him in the highest esteem in many ways.”

Their ideas not only had a profound impact on the past economic and social landscape, but they will continue to influence current and future economic and social development until a more convincing economic ideology takes hold.

The Historical Debate Between Hayek and Keynes


_The Road to Serfdom_ is a work by Friedrich Hayek, published in 1944 with the full title "The Road to Serfdom: The Path to Individualism and Social Order." The book primarily explores the negative impact of collectivism and planned economies on individual freedom and social order.

**Key Points and Arguments:**

1. **Planned Economy Leads to Serfdom:** Hayek argues that excessive central planning and collectivist ideologies can result in political serfdom. He cautions that when governments attempt to excessively intervene in the economy and society, it may ultimately harm individual freedom, leading to a state of despotism.

2. **Free Market and Individualism:** The book advocates for free markets and individualism as effective means to ensure individual freedom and societal prosperity. Hayek believes that market mechanisms better satisfy people's needs, while excessive intervention distorts the market, leading to adverse consequences.

3. **Importance of Social Order:** The author contends that social order is not achieved through central planning but rather through the individual's free choices and market competition. Excessive concentration of governmental power may disrupt this order, causing chaos and instability.

In addition to the main points mentioned above, Friedrich Hayek presents several other significant ideas in _The Road to Serfdom_:

1. **Knowledge Problem of Planned Economies:** Hayek highlights the difficulty of central planning in effectively acquiring and utilizing dispersed knowledge within society. He argues that market mechanisms, through price systems, can transmit vast amounts of decentralized information, which central planning often fails to achieve.

2. **Individual Freedom and Social Responsibility:** The book emphasizes that individual freedom is not unlimited but exists within the framework of the rule of law. Hayek suggests that in a free society, individuals should bear some social responsibility for their actions to maintain overall social order.

3. **Defense of Liberalism:** _The Road to Serfdom_ serves as Hayek's defense of liberalism. He asserts that liberalism is not indifferent to societal issues but addresses them through the free choices of individuals and market competition while maintaining the rule of law and social order.

4. **Evolution of Social Rules:** The author stresses that the evolution of social rules should be a continuous process of adaptation to change, not dictated by central planning. He believes that the evolution of social rules occurs through the practical experiences of individuals, rather than through abstract theoretical planning.

These ideas collectively form the complex and profound liberal theory in "The Road to Serfdom," aiming to elucidate the relationship between free markets, individual freedom, and social order, as well as the potential negative consequences of central planning on these relationships.

**Methods of Argumentation:**

1. **Historical Case Analysis:** By analyzing the history of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, Hayek illustrates the relationship between planned economies and totalitarianism, aiming to demonstrate that planned economies may lead to the loss of individual freedom.

2. **Economic Theory and Market Principles:** The book employs economic and market principles to explain how market mechanisms, through supply and demand relationships and individual choices, efficiently allocate resources, positively impacting social order.

**Conclusion:**
The conclusion of _The Road to Serfdom_ is that to preserve individual freedom and social order, one should avoid excessive central planning and collectivist ideologies. Individualism and free-market mechanisms are considered key factors in constructing a robust social order.

In summary, Hayek presents a critique of planned economies and collectivism in this book, emphasizing the importance of individual freedom and market mechanisms for society. This has established _The Road to Serfdom_ as a classic in 20th-century liberal thought.


The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek warns against planned economies, advocating for free markets and individualism to safeguard freedom and societal order. Hayek critiques central planning, emphasizing the knowledge problem and the evolution of social rules, defending liberalism as a solution.

Viewpoints and Conclusions of The Road to Serfdom


![蔡元培（1868-1940），字鹤卿](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PrinOrange/pic-host/master/myblog/7b2044bab6ac61e0b9dfc6ebcdcf620.webp)

五年前，严几道先生为本校校长时，余方服务教育部，开学日曾有所贡献于学校。诸君多自预科毕业而来，想必闻知。士别三日，刮目相见，况时阅数载，诸君较昔当为长足之进步矣。予今长斯校，请以三事为诸君告：

一曰抱定宗旨。诸君来此求学，必有一定宗旨，欲求宗旨之正大与否，必先知大学之性质。今人肄业专门学校，学成任事，此固势所必然。而在大学则不然，大学者，研究高深学问者也。外人每指摘本校之腐败，以求学于此者，皆有做官发财思想，故毕业预科者，多入法科，入文科者甚少，入理科者尤少，盖以法科为干禄之终南捷径也。因做官心热，对于教员，则不问其学问之浅深，惟问其官阶之大小。官阶大者，特别欢迎，盖为将来毕业有人提携也。现在我国精于政法者，多入政界，专任教授者甚少，故聘请教员，不得不聘请兼职之人，亦属不得已之举。究之外人指摘之当否，姑不具论，然弭谤莫如自修，人讥我腐败，问心无愧，于我何惧？果欲达其做官发财之目的，则北京不少专门学校，入法科者尽可肄业于法律学堂，入商科者亦可投考商业学校，又何必来此大学？所以诸君须抱定宗旨，为求学而来，入法科者，非为做官;入商科者，非为致富。宗旨既定，自趋正轨，诸君肄业于此，或三年，或四年，时间不为不多，苟能爱惜分阴，孜孜求学，则求造诣，容有底止。若徒志在做官发财，宗旨既乖，趋向自异。平时则放荡冶游，考试则熟读讲义，不问学问之有无，惟争分数之多寡;试验既终，书籍束之高阁，毫不过问，敷衍三、四年，潦草塞责，文凭到手，即可借此活动于社会，岂非与求学初衷大相背驰乎？光阴虚度，学问毫无，是自误也。且辛亥之役，吾人之所以革命，因清廷官吏之腐败。即在今日，吾人对于当轴多不满意，亦以其道德沦丧。今诸君苟不于此时植其基，勤其学，则将来万一因生计所迫，出而仕事，但任讲席，则必贻误学生;置身政界，则必贻误国家。是误人也。误已误人，又岂本心所愿乎？故宗旨不可以不正大。此余所希望于诸君者一也。

二曰砥砺德行。方今风俗日偷，道德沦丧，北京社会，尤为恶劣，败德毁行之事，触目皆是，非根基深固，鲜不为流俗所染。诸君肄业大学，当能束身自爱。然国家之兴替，视风俗之厚薄。流俗如此，前途何堪设想。故必有卓绝之士，以身作则，力矫颓俗，诸君为大学学生，地位甚高，肩此重任，责无旁贷，故诸君不惟思所以感已，更必有以励人。苟德之不修，学之不讲，同乎流俗，合乎污世，已且为人轻侮，更何足以感人。然诸君终日伏首案前，芸芸攻苦，毫无娱乐之事，必感身体上之苦痛。为诸君计，莫如以正当之娱乐，易不正当之娱乐，庶几道德无亏，而于身体有益。诸君入分科时，曾填写愿书，遵守本校规则，苟中道而违之，岂非与原始之意相反乎？故品行不可以不谨严。此余所希望于诸君者二也。

三曰敬爱师友。教员之教授，职员之任务，皆以图诸君求学便利，诸君能无动于衷乎？自应以诚相待，敬礼有加。至于同学共处一室，尤应互相亲爱，庶可收切磋之效。不惟开诚布公，更宜道义相勖，盖同处此校，毁誉共之。同学中苟道德有亏，行有不正，为社会所訾詈，已虽规行矩步，亦莫能辨，此所以必互相劝勉也。余在德国，每至店肆购买物品，店主殷勤款待，付价接物，互相称谢，此虽小节，然亦交际所必需，常人如此，况堂堂大学生乎？对于师友之敬爱，此余所希望于诸君者三也。

余到校视事仅数日，校事多未详悉，兹所计划者二事：一曰改良讲义。诸君既研究高深学问，自与中学、高等不同，不惟恃教员讲授，尤赖一已潜修。以后所印讲义，只列纲要，细微末节，以及精旨奥义，或讲师口授，或自行参考，以期学有心得，能裨实用二曰添购书籍。本校图书馆书籍虽多，新出者甚少，苟不广为购办，必不足供学生之参考。刻拟筹集款项，多购新书，将来典籍满架，自可旁稽博采，无虞缺乏矣。今日所与诸君陈说者只此，以后会晤日长，随时再为商榷可也。


《就任北京大学校长之演说》是近代教育家蔡元培的演说作品，是蔡元培在 1917 年就任北京大学校长时发表的。这篇就任北京大学校长的就职演讲，开宗明义地对青年学子提出了三点要求：一是抱定宗旨；二是砥砺德行；三是敬爱师友。明确求学目的及办学宗旨，望学子们以身作则，匡正流俗，为天下人之道德楷模。

就任北京大学校长之演说


余幼時即嗜學。家貧，無從致書以觀，每假借於藏書之家，手自筆錄，計日以還。天大寒，硯冰堅，手指不可屈伸，弗之怠。錄畢，走送之，不敢稍逾約。以是人多以書假余，余因得遍觀羣書。既加冠，益慕聖賢之道，又患無碩師名人與游，嘗趨百里外，從鄉之先達執經叩問。先達德隆望尊，門人弟子填其室，未嘗稍降辭色。余立侍左右，援疑質理，俯身傾耳以請；或遇其叱咄，色愈恭，禮愈至，不敢出一言以復；俟其欣悅，則又請焉。故余雖愚，卒獲有所聞。

當余之從師也，嘗負篋曳屣，行深山巨谷中。窮冬烈風，大雪深數尺，足膚皸裂而不知。至舍，四支僵勁不能動，媵人持湯沃灌，以衾擁覆，久而乃和。寓逆旅，主人日再食，無鮮肥滋味之享。同捨生皆被綺綉，戴珠纓寶飾之帽，腰白玉之環，左佩刀，右備容臭，燁然若神人。余則縕袍敝衣處其間，畧無慕豔意。以中有足樂者，不知口體之奉不若人也。蓋余之勤且艱若此。今雖耄老，未有所成，猶幸預君子之列，而承天子之寵光，綴公卿之後，日侍坐備顧問，四海亦謬稱其氏名，況才之過於余者乎？

今諸生學於太學，縣官日有廩稍之供，父母歲有裘葛之遺，無凍餒之患矣；坐大廈之下而誦《詩》《書》，無奔走之勞矣；有司業、博士為之師，未有問而不告、求而不得者也；凡所宜有之書，皆集於此，不必若余之手錄、假諸人而後見也。其業有不精、德有不成者，非天質之卑，則心不若余之專耳，豈他人之過哉。

東陽馬生君則，在太學已二年，流輩甚稱其賢。余朝京師，生以鄉人子謁余，譔長書以為贄，辭甚暢達；與之論辯，言和而色夷。自謂少時用心於學甚勞，是可謂善學者矣。其將歸見其親也，余故道為學之難以告之。謂余勉鄉人以學者，余之志也；詆我夸際遇之盛而驕鄉人者，豈知予者哉。


余朝京師，生以鄉人子謁余，譔長書以為贄，辭甚暢達；與之論辯，言和而色夷。自謂少時用心於學甚勞，是可謂善學者矣。其將歸見其親也，余故道為學之難以告之。謂余勉鄉人以學者，余之志也；詆我夸際遇之盛而驕鄉人者，豈知予者哉。

送東陽馬生序


## 中国传统中没有民主观念

**《财经》：** 今年（编者按，2014 年）是孔子诞辰 2565 周年，随着各种纪念活动的展开，对于传统文化的关注也达到了新高潮。我注意到，许多人士的文章或演讲里都提到文化传统“创造性转化”。这个词是您在上世纪 70 年代初期最早提出的，那么，究竟什么是文化传统的“创造性转化”？

> **林毓生：** 文化传统的“创造性转化”乃是把一些中国文化传统中的符号、观念与价值加以重组或改造（有的传统成分加以重组，另外有的成分则需改造，当然也有成分应该扬弃），使经过重组或改造的符号、观念与价值变成有利于变迁的种子，同时在变迁的过程中继续保持了文化的认同。这里所说的重组或改造，当然是指传统中有的东西可以重组或改造、值得重组或改造，这种重组或改造可以受外国文化某些成分的影响，却不是硬把外国东西移植过来。

---

**《财经》：** 既然能够进行“创造性转化”，就意味着传统文化里是有合理性的因素。但是在一些人士看来，传统文化里缺乏现代性因素，很难为中国的现代化转型提供思想资源。例如，中国传统里就没有民主的观念。

> **林毓生：** 民主的观念最根本的意义是“主权在民”（popular sovereignty）——国家为人民所有，应由人民自治，中国传统中并没有这个观念。
>
> 民选的官员与这些官员指派的部属以及民意代表，在民主的观念与制度中都是人民的公仆，他们的政治行为需向人民负责，而民主的制度必须制定法律使他们不能不负责。民主的运作必须依据法律的程序。无可讳言，无论从思想层次而言或从运作层次而言，民主是从西方引进来的东西。

---

**《财经》：** 但是也有不少学者认为，孟子的“民为贵，社稷次之，君为轻”、“天视自我民视，天听自我民听”等论说表明，中国传统里是有民主的思想资源的。

> **林毓生：** “民为贵”可分广义与狭义二说：从其广义来看，那是看重人的价值；从其狭义来说，那是强调有道之君要为人民谋福祉，那是来自政治道德化的思维，即使表面上与民主观念中所包含的“民享”观念相通，但因来源不同，不可与民主观念相混淆。
>
> 民主观念所包含的“民享”，在理论上是政治运作的自然结果（实际情况当然要复杂得多）：国家主权属于人民，亦即民有；人民有权利，也被假定有能力自治，亦即民治；自治的措施一切为人民，亦即“民享”。所以，“民享”是民主的自然结果。**简明地说，“民享”就是人民自己为自己。儒家中“民为贵”的思想来源与这个“民享”观念的来源完全不同。**
>
> 孟子所谓“天视自我民视，天听自我民听”，指谓“天命”是由民意所显示，同时衍生出来人民有权利反叛暴君的观念（《孟子· 梁惠王下》：“齐宣王问曰：汤放桀，武王伐纣，有诸？孟子对曰：于传有之。曰：臣弑其君可乎？曰：贼仁者谓之贼，贼义者谓之残，残贼之人谓之一夫。闻诛一夫纣矣，未闻弑君也”）。
>
> 但这并不表示就是民主，因为“天命”虽由民意所显示，但并不传入人民手中：如果反叛失败了，天命仍然保留在原来的君王手中，如果反叛成功了，天命便传给下面一位“真命天予”的手中，人民的地位并无改变，仍然是需要君王统治的（在传统中国，由于社会关系主要是由“礼”来维系，所以权利观念并不是特别发达。不过，正如上引孟子的话所显示，反叛暴君、暴政的权利是清楚的）。
>
> 因此，儒家政治哲学的最高理想，归根究底仍是一元论的、政教合一的“圣王”观念。和“主权在民”相反，中国的传统观念是“普遍王权”。这种观念认为，人间的政治与社会秩序必须依靠秉承“天命”的君王才能获致，在这个观念的笼罩之下，中国传统中的思想家未曾想到国家的秩序可以来自人民的自治。事实上，中国在“普遍王权”未被怀疑之前，无法产生民主的观念。

---

**《财经》：** 奇怪的是，为什么近代以来每一代中国知识分子当中，都有人主张中国传统中原有民主的论调呢？

> **林毓生：** 这是建筑在模糊理解之上或是由于自卑心理在作祟——看见西方的好东西，就硬说我们自己也有，或者是为了政治利益所做的宣传工作。
>
> 正因为我们传统中并没有民主的观念与制度，所以我们在实行民主的时候，要特别小心，要提高警觉，千万不要被迷惑或玩弄。必须认清一点：因为我们传统中并无民主的观念与制度，所以在中国实行民主实在不是一件容易的事，虽然我们有了实行民主的要求而客观上也有许多有利的条件可以配合。
>
> 不过，话还得说回来，虽然我们传统中没有民主的观念与制度，但却有许多资源可以与民主的观念与制度“接枝”，仁的哲学就可以与平等观念“接枝”。前面我在答复你的访问时，也谈到一点儒家看重人的价值，尊重人的道德自主性时，与西方宪 ZHENG 民主所蕴含的对人的尊重之间可以彼此沟通、借鉴的。

---

## “使过去的原则变成现代化的种子”

**《财经》：** 法治目前是中国大陆的一个“热词”，不管是执政者还是普通民众，都认识到法治的重要性。但是，到底什么是法治？

> **林毓生：** “法治”二字指谓 the rule of law。法治是法律主治，与 the rule by law（依法治国）不同。人类各个民族都有多彩多姿的历史，其中都有大家均能欣赏的美好成分。然而，只有欧美文明 ─ 虽然也发展出来不少可怕、可鄙的成分 ─ 却在启蒙时代发展出来以“权力约束权力”的机制与深刻的政治思想。
>
> 正如孟德斯鸠所说：“一切有权力的人都容易滥用权力，这是万古不易的一个经验。有权力的人们使用权力一直到遇有界线的地方方才休止……从事物的性质来说，要防止滥用权力，就必须以权力约束权力”。“以权力约束权力”指的是：权力不再统合于一人或极少数几个人手中；政府的行政权、立法权、司法权分立之，彼此不能逾越而能相互制衡。**人类的历史经验告诉我们：只有实现法治的宪政民主制度，才有落实权力受到约束的希望。**
>
> 另外，实现法治的国家能够保障每个人在法律范围之内的个人自由。在讨论什么是法治之前，需先对法律与指令（commands）做一严格的区分。指令是为了完成发布指令的人（或组织）的特定目的而发布的。必须接受指令的人，根本没有机会遵从他自己的倾向。专制国家的指令，则常以法律的形式呈现（不过，在行之有年的宪 ZHENG 民主国家，临时出现了紧急状况时，政府有时也需要使用指令来解决紧急问题）。
>
> 法治中的法律，则有两个要件：
>
> - **（1）普遍性：** 它普遍地应用到社会上的每一个人，没有人可以例外。中国法家思想中也有所谓王子犯法与庶民同罪，表面看来似是“平等”的说法。然而，法家思想中的“法”，大多是这里所说的“指令”。它基本上，是为“家天下”的帝王的利益服务的，也与下面所要谈的法治中的法律 ─ 不为任何人或团体的具体目的服务的 ─ 抽象性要件不符，两者根本不同，不可混淆。
>
>   人间的法律，如果能够运作得平等，它增加了人们的行为在这个范围之内的信心、稳定性与灵活性。假若我守法的话，其他人也都守法的话，我在这个空间之内是相当自由的，我就不必太担心，假若有一个人要跟我捣乱，我怎么办？因为他要跟我捣乱的话，我知道法律就会对付他。
>
> - **（2）抽象性：** 法治之下的法律不为任何人或任何团体（包括政党）的具体目的服务。当我们遵守那些（在制定时并不考虑对特定的人适用问题的）普遍且抽象的规则时，我们并不是在服从其他人的意志，因而我们是自由的。
>
>   正是由于立法者并不知道其制定的规则将适用于什么特定的案件，也正是由于应用这些规则的法官，除了根据现行规则与受理案件的特定事实作出判决，别无其他选择。
>
>   尤有进者，必须加重语气强调的是：不是任何经过法律程序通过的法案就是合乎法治的法律。为什么呢？因为立法本身需要遵守合乎法治的基本原则，可称之为法治的“后设原则”（meta-legal principles）。这些“后设原则”指的是支持法治的道德价值及受其影响的政治观念，包括：人生而平等，人不可能十全十美（故其权力必须在制度上加以限制）等等。假若立法机构合乎程序通过的法案违背了法治原则的话，大法官会议可判其违宪。

---

**《财经》：** 与这种法治观念比起来，中国历史上法家主张的“法治”显然不是为了维护人权，而是为了“禁暴止乱”，维护统治者的利益。

> **林毓生：** 法家所谈的那一套主要是把法律当做政治统治的工具，与英美民主社会所依靠的“法律主治”的法治完全不同。以法治的观点去看法家所谓的法律，那些法律是违法的。以法律作为统治工具的法家思想，只能造成一个有效率的威权或极权国家。
>
> 中国历史上，对于帝王专制的批评很多。明末清初，左派王学和黄宗羲的思想都深切地感受到了帝王专制的痛苦，黄宗羲甚至说中国的“家天下”是“以我之大私为天下之大公”，但在实质层面他们并未突破传统政治思想的架构。

---

**《财经》：** 基本人权的理论在西方非常发达，而在中国传统里并没有这方面的思想。这恐怕也正是中国难以建立法治的一个重要原因吧？

> **林毓生：** 我们需要的法治必须以基本人权为其前提，而拥护基本人权思想正不必完全取自西方哲学的传统，不一定非要用西方理论为我们所需之基本人权做辩解，孔孟的“仁”的哲学也可作为基本人权的理论基础。前已述及，孟子所说人民有反叛暴君的权利，所以中国传统不是绝对没有基本人权的观念。
>
> “仁”的哲学的最基本原则，就是肯定人的道德资质是与生俱来的；而用内省的工夫，吾人深知自己具有道德资质。这种道德资质是天生的、永恒不变的，不是社会演变、后天教育或法律约束的结果。就每个人都有天生的道德资质、都有发展道德资质的意愿而言，人是生而平等的，所以每个人的身体、精神与意愿都应受到基本的尊敬。基本人权的肯定是尊敬人并给予他发展机会的条件。人生的目的是完成道德的自我，在社群中个人本身就是终极目的，他不可化约为其他任何人的工具。
>
> 在国史之中，天赋人权的观念并未自儒家传统中产生，但这是历史演变的结果，并非逻辑的必然。

---

**《财经》：** 和西方的自然法学说和契约论比起来，“仁”的哲学无论就基本内容或历史发展来说，均有很大的不同。

> **林毓生：** 但自然法学说与契约论所支持的天赋人权说，这一点却同样地可由“仁”的观念来支持。
>
> 我们现在思想上，正可进行具有充分理由的与合乎理则的‘创造性转化”，使过去的原则变成现代化的种子。如果我们认为我们现在的思想与精神和我们的传统有正面的密切关系，那么我们要以在我们思想与精神中认同的，文化传统中正面成分为荣。如果这些正面文化传统成分中包括“仁”的观念；那么，作为一个现代的中国人最大的责任与荣耀之一，便是要为建立保障基本人权的法治制度而奋斗。
>
> 人类经验告诉我们，只有法治之下的社会、政治、经济与文化生活最能提供给参与其中的个人免于强制（至最大程度的）个人自由的生活。这种生活最能提供给他需要的各项资讯与知识，而且也使他与其他人在他们各自不同的工作中，产生彼此的合作与协助。所以，保障个人自由的社会最能利用知识，最有生机，最能解决问题。因此，也是最有力量的社会。

---

**《财经》：** 如何理解民主与法治的关系？

> **林毓生：** 实现民主必须先有法治。没有法治，绝不可能有实质的民主与自由。但是由于中国压根没有法治的传统，只有人治和刑罚的传统，这是我们的根本问题所在。建立法治的制度与文化是一个艰苦而繁复的过程。法治绝不能由急遽的革命方式产生，如果以渐进的方式利用前所未有的社会力量建立法治的基础，或有成功的希望。


实现民主必须先有法治。没有法治，绝不可能有实质的民主与自由。但是由于中国压根没有法治的传统，只有人治和刑罚的传统，这是我们的根本问题所在。建立法治的制度与文化是一个艰苦而繁复的过程。

NOTE & BLOG

Posts of 文史哲艺

The Historical Debate Between Hayek and Keynes

Viewpoints and Conclusions of The Road to Serfdom

就任北京大学校长之演说

送東陽馬生序

林毓生：在「普遍王权」被怀疑之前，中国永远不可能产生民主